Global Cooling

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:55 pm

The threat of global cooling made it's appearance back in the '70s.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html ... 010278&p=1
It fell out of fashion because nobody figured out how to make money on it. Global warming sounded a lot more threatening and made lots of money.
Now, global cooling is getting some serious consideration.
Reportedly the last ice age came on in just one year; http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Last-I ... 4351045.jp

Everybody has something to report on the ice; http://iceagenow.com/Arctic_ice_refuses ... rdered.htm

Now, the sun is getting into the news; http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+Hist ... e12823.htm
We've started a new sunspot cycle but, there aren't any sunspots.

Supposedly, last year was cool enough to erase 30 years of global warming
"2007 was significantly cooler and that was the first major downturn in the temperature in 30 years. That cooling has persisted -- at this point, in temperature, about back where we were in the year 1900." http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008 ... view_2.php

This might all be easy to ignore but, the US senate is talking cooling also,,,,, Canada too; http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 32747616f9

There is lots to read for those interested;
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html ... db11f4&p=1
Global warming would increase precipitation and crop yield. Cooling would do the opposite.
Dan

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:46 am

The theory I have heard is tied to global warming as a cause for a shift in ocean currents.
The mean change is not radical, but the changes in specific locations could be very dramatic and quick.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:55 am

there's a whole theory surrounding global warming causing global cooling.......that the increased water vapor in the atmosphere reflects heat, and causes more snowfall, for more reflection, and on down the line......I remember a class discussion, many years ago, when the teacher stated, then explained, how a 4 deg.F. rise in global temps would bring on an ice age.............

I agree with you, Dan, on the whole idea that the warming crowd is mostly driven by folks that see money to be made with warming, that can't be made with cooling...........The "foot soldiers" are doing what they are told is right, and, for the right reasons, but maybe acting on false or partial information as proven fact. Perhaps mislead by their leaders.....

They can play on many peoples inherent self guilt and loathing. They can tell the masses that they've been bad, and, are ruining everything by their excesses, and, so, they need to change themselves (but mostly tell others how to live), to save those less fortunate........

and the leaders, get rich.........

And, understand, I'm not promoting being wasteful, damaging, etc, as relates to the planet.

I also think the mechanism of Earths temp regulation are far more complex and powerful than we know.........
It's sort of an "egomaniacal" sense we put on ourselves, like we have so much power that the world starts and stops on our actions.
Sure, we can have great effect on localized areas, and, some effect on a large scale.
But, compared to what the Earth itself can do, we are the ant...........A couple of large volcanoes, and not even super or huge, just large, can have more atmospheric influence than we ever can. And, not counting the activity that goes unnoticed under the sea........and mechanisms we either don't understand, or, even know about........

seems the action would be to do what's right, and, deal with how the Earth does it's thing...........We can't direct what goes on, and, IMHO, are better off watching and being adaptable to deal with the changes that take place........

Nope, I'm not cynical or opinionated.......

Aiee! It burns! · Post by **Aiee! It burns!** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:19 am

gyre wrote:The theory I have heard is tied to global warming as a cause for a shift in ocean currents.
The mean change is not radical, but the changes in specific locations could be very dramatic and quick.

True and accurate, and despite the thrashing about an wallowing in denial, the effects of the environment are inevitable.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:11 pm

The numbers from August are in and what we currently see according to the satellite measurements is that the month of August had us right smack dab on the average temp since 1979. Well, actually 1/100th of a degree below the average since 1979.

In the following image from NOAA's climate information center for North America (the above is global, the below for North America only) you have a graph of the most recent 12-month period (September through August) for 1989 through 2008. The black line is the average from 1977 through 2008. Again we are pretty much smack on the 30 year average. In other words, no warming for the past 30 years according to the data.

And finally, the following graph of "year to date" January-August temperatures gives a better indication of the dramatic cooling that started in January of 2007 and is continuing. Again the black line is the average since 1977 and so far this year we are well below average with a trend of 0.78 degrees/decade cooling or a cooling rate of nearly 8 degrees per century which is fairly well unprecedented cooling in recorded history.

Climate is never stable. It is always warming or cooling. Always.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:28 pm

The latest newsflash; GOV charged us for global warming so they're going to give us refunds for global cooling

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm

Obama has some guy who is supposedly rabid about global warming. Gotta KILL that carbon dioxide.
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.co ... _ago.thtml

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:23 pm

JK

oneeyeddick · Post by **oneeyeddick** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:29 pm

I hope it is hotter than hell at BRC this year........

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:22 am

We are now in a cooling stage because of little or no activity in sun spots if it continues we will have a little ice age the last major effect of no sun spots

Have I said this before?

Deja Boo!

AIIZ

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:29 am

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:We are now in a cooling stage because of little or no activity in sun spots if it continues we will have a little ice age the last major effect of no sun spots

Have I said this before?

Deja Boo!

AIIZ

I wonder, then, if the global warming we complain about will moderate the global cooling........

Maybe we'll get global luke warmishness........

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:05 am

Climatology is so simple.

I'd settle for tropical weather along the west coast: average about 80F year-round, with rain coming at least every week. Then I wouldn't have to retire in Hawai'i.

What can I do to encourage this?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:13 am

Dougly, If you want rain once a week, your best bet is to start praying to Zeus's pantheon. GOV has admitted to doing weather engineering but, everything has it's limits. 80 deg winters doesn't look too likely either; http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles ... 9412587175

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:20 am

can't sit still wrote:Dougly, If you want rain once a week, your best bet is to start praying to Zeus's pantheon. GOV has admitted to doing weather engineering but, everything has it's limits. 80 deg winters doesn't look too likely either; http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles ... 9412587175

I'd rather suggest sacrifice to Odin, et al...........

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:51 am

I just got back from the mountains and I forgot my coat.
Only got a little chilly at night.
What month is this?

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:19 pm

And, for another viewpoint:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/8/195410/0621

which links to this page of graphs:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

One thing I notice is that the trends become obscured when you take too short a time frame, mostly because there is a rather high noise component. Over a 50-year time frame the trends are better established.

I'm all for examining the data comprehensively. It would be good news if the scientific consensus about climate change was in error. I don't see the global warming skeptics being sufficiently supported, however, by the data quoted in earlier posts.

As for the sunspot scarcity, see

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/ ... s_sun.html

which contains this quote

Hathaway cautions that this development may sound more exciting than it actually is: "While the solar minimum of 2008 is shaping up to be the deepest of the Space Age, it is still unremarkable compared to the long and deep solar minima of the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Those earlier minima routinely racked up 200 to 300 spotless days per year.

As for the assertion that global warming is financially advantaged over global cooling, I invite people to consider the heating costs in the northern half of the country.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:56 pm

dr.placebo wrote: As for the assertion that global warming is financially advantaged over global cooling, I invite people to consider the heating costs in the northern half of the country.

Yeah, I find that a dubious proposition as well. How much money is anyone making from global warming? And it was a lot less five or ten years ago. That's a long payoff for something that began in the 70s. I mean, some of the instigators are dead by now. What did they gain?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:08 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
dr.placebo wrote: As for the assertion that global warming is financially advantaged over global cooling, I invite people to consider the heating costs in the northern half of the country.
Yeah, I find that a dubious proposition as well. How much money is anyone making from global warming? And it was a lot less five or ten years ago. That's a long payoff for something that began in the 70s. I mean, some of the instigators are dead by now. What did they gain?

red:
some of that could probably be answered by the people that make the people who make the refrigerant, CFC, substitutes.......alternative energy things......
fluorescent lightbulbs....... hybrid batteries........

blue:
not that they planned to die before profit, or, that said profit would take so long.......
the cynic in me says, with all this, follow the money trail, to the leaders.
sure, the "rank and file" are altruistic, to some degree, but, the big guns make money off it.........

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:58 pm

My understanding is that the refrigerant substitution was due to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, which was making it tough on life down under, since most of the depletion was in the southern hemisphere.

I am quite willing to believe that there are significant economic consequences to climate change, whether it is cooling or warming. But given the relative uncertainty behind the numbers some years ago I'm skeptical about some big business push towards accepting climate change. Indeed, a lot of lobbying from business seems to be on the denial side.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:05 am

The big money in global warming is in carbon credits. It's supposed to be worth $ 32 trillion by 2020;
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/artic ... Page1.html

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:15 am

dr.placebo wrote:My understanding is that the refrigerant substitution was due to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, which was making it tough on life down under, since most of the depletion was in the southern hemisphere.

I am quite willing to believe that there are significant economic consequences to climate change, whether it is cooling or warming. But given the relative uncertainty behind the numbers some years ago I'm skeptical about some big business push towards accepting climate change. Indeed, a lot of lobbying from business seems to be on the denial side.

yeah, I heard that, too........but, IIRC, there is no real proof that the CFC's from refrigerators, etc, even got up that high (in significant amounts).....most likely cause was volcanos........

I guess, my cynical self, says that someone got the idea of connecting car A/C leaks and global warming, to, get (bribe) congress into a mandate to change to a chemical they sell.......
I've heard that patent rights, or something like that, ran out about the same time.........

yeah, climate change, how unusual for Earth........warming, cooling.....dang that cyclical stuff........lets make money saying it's due to man ( I don't deny we may well exacerbate it), and, sell us the "solution" then, when it doesn't change, sell us something new, or, blame nature.........or our delays in addressing the problem.

Note: I'm not for environmental destruction, waste, or lack of respect.
I also don't want to live in a mud hut and walk, (or ride Mule) to the witch doctor........

Tough problems, tough solutions, probably the truth lies somewhere in between...........

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:55 am

Maybe these people think you're funny for saying it's getting cooler.

[youtube][/youtube]

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:24 pm

OZ has had 6 years of drought. Lately it has been up to 48 deg there. Neither global warming or global cooling are a homogeneous occurrence. Hotter some places and cooler in others. With cooling comes less evaporation and precipitation. People go ho-hum when California burns. OZ is a different story. Years ago, the aboriginals used to light the place on fire and eat whatever they found. Not exactly the best stewards of the land.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:44 am

can't sit still wrote:OZ has had 6 years of drought. Lately it has been up to 48 deg there. Neither global warming or global cooling are a homogeneous occurrence. Hotter some places and cooler in others. With cooling comes less evaporation and precipitation. People go ho-hum when California burns. OZ is a different story. Years ago, the aboriginals used to light the place on fire and eat whatever they found. Not exactly the best stewards of the land.

Some things don't have the same impact when there's only a few thousand of you.

(Kind of like the playa in early days, huh?)

But it's a good point, if a fat person jumps into a jacuzzi, you have waves going up and going down. Some look at the waves going down and say (in a sad attempt for attention), "Hey the water level is dropping!" Whereas the measurable level is higher. And a jacuzzi's water level is a fairly simple system compared to global climate.

A more honest term is "Global Climate Change".

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:51 pm

ygmir wrote: yeah, I heard that, too........but, IIRC, there is no real proof that the CFC's from refrigerators, etc, even got up that high (in significant amounts).....most likely cause was volcanos........

Nope. Most likely cause was man-made CFCs and halogenated hydrocarbons, a class of highly stable and energetic compounds. The specific CFC was CFC-11, as measured in Antarctic overflights back in the 1970s-80s. CFC-11 is not a naturally occurring compound...no natural background...so if it came from volcanoes, they were not volcanoes found on this planet.

It has been repeatedly shown that CFCs are transported into the stratosphere, and that the photochemistry and chemical reaction between ozone and these long-lived cfcs keeps the free chlorine in an energetic state, thereby continuing to break apart ozone. There is no informed debate on this issue. The scientists that initially worked on this got a Nobel Prize in chemistry, btw.

CFC-11 has a mean atmospheric lifespan of about 70 years. The ugly one is CFC 113, used to clean those early Apple & PC boards: 150 years. The pace of damage is slowing because of the ban, but the damage is still increasing, and will continue for decades.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:18 pm

chiefdanfox wrote:if it came from volcanoes, they were not volcanoes found on this planet.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:24 pm

can't sit still wrote:The big money in global warming is in carbon credits. It's supposed to be worth $ 32 trillion by 2020;
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/artic ... Page1.html

When were carbon credits first thought of? Who thought of them? Would people in the 70s have known that they would be proposed and that they would be making all that money? Who's making money off of carbon credits? How many atmospheric scientists are getting rich off them?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:27 pm

ygmir wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote:
dr.placebo wrote: As for the assertion that global warming is financially advantaged over global cooling, I invite people to consider the heating costs in the northern half of the country.
Yeah, I find that a dubious proposition as well. How much money is anyone making from global warming? And it was a lot less five or ten years ago. That's a long payoff for something that began in the 70s. I mean, some of the instigators are dead by now. What did they gain?
red:
some of that could probably be answered by the people that make the people who make the refrigerant, CFC, substitutes.......alternative energy things......
fluorescent lightbulbs....... hybrid batteries........

blue:
not that they planned to die before profit, or, that said profit would take so long.......
the cynic in me says, with all this, follow the money trail, to the leaders.
sure, the "rank and file" are altruistic, to some degree, but, the big guns make money off it.........

Who are the big guns? How much money are they making? Are they making more than...oil companies? How many "global warming disbelievers" have been in the pay of oil companies? How much money have they been paid?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:31 pm

chiefdanfox wrote:
ygmir wrote: yeah, I heard that, too........but, IIRC, there is no real proof that the CFC's from refrigerators, etc, even got up that high (in significant amounts).....most likely cause was volcanos........
Nope. Most likely cause was man-made CFCs and halogenated hydrocarbons, a class of highly stable and energetic compounds. The specific CFC was CFC-11, as measured in Antarctic overflights back in the 1970s-80s. CFC-11 is not a naturally occurring compound...no natural background...so if it came from volcanoes, they were not volcanoes found on this planet.

It has been repeatedly shown that CFCs are transported into the stratosphere, and that the photochemistry and chemical reaction between ozone and these long-lived cfcs keeps the free chlorine in an energetic state, thereby continuing to break apart ozone. There is no informed debate on this issue. The scientists that initially worked on this got a Nobel Prize in chemistry, btw.

CFC-11 has a mean atmospheric lifespan of about 70 years. The ugly one is CFC 113, used to clean those early Apple & PC boards: 150 years. The pace of damage is slowing because of the ban, but the damage is still increasing, and will continue for decades.

that's good info CDF........thanks.
I'll accept it as given, I think you do your homework...........

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:42 pm

[/quote]Who are the big guns? How much money are they making? Are they making more than...oil companies? How many "global warming disbelievers" have been in the pay of oil companies? How much money have they been paid?[/quote]

who cares who the big guns are, yes, they make money off it. Do you think all these companies offering "alternatives" are doing it for the good of the world? Sure, they like living, but, they are making as much money as possible......don't kid yourself.

Why does it matter if they make as much as oil companies? Are you talking as a percentage profit, or, total dollars?
If total dollars, comparatively, then, to me, anyone making over 100K is a ' lyin' cheater" (or whatever you want to call an oil company), since, relative to me, they make so much money, just like the oil companies......

It's all relative....

I'm sure big oil has hired and paid for all sorts of dis-information.

But, who can you take at face value? Who has no agenda? Who does not "stretch" the truth to advance their agenda?
I'd submit:
no one.
All organizations play fast and loose with the facts, to, get us to pay attention to their message...........

so then, IMHO, it's just a matter of degrees..............

relativity, again.

"If it makes sense to you, and agrees with what you think, then, it's true."

that's a paraphrase Of U.D. tag line at one point. It's so good.